Gaming New Zelda WiiU Gameplay from The Game Awards 2014

[shinkodachi]

We'll have to wait and see, though...

 

[Bladexdsl]

I'm confused. Since when is a Zelda game jam packed with side quests and people like GTA?

Can someone please point me in a Zelda title which does this? I think of OOT, ALBW... I'd say Zelda has always been more SOTC rather than Skyrim/GTA.

the closest would be MM. and zelda is not a huge city like GTA were out in the wilderness here you know forests, mountains, deserts in like the medieval times so of course it's not going to be jam packed with people, cars etc!

 

[Guild McCommunist]

the closest would be MM. and zelda is not a huge city like GTA were out in the wilderness here you know forests, mountains, deserts in like the medieval times so of course it's not going to be jam packed with people, cars etc!

The point is it should have something. Quests, events, creatures, just things to keep it exciting. Part of the joy of GTA games is setting a path from A to B and being confronted with a ton of obstacles or quests on the way there. You set a path from one town to another in Skyrim and you rarely will have an uneventful journey.

We don't want Zelda of the Colossus, SotC's vacancy worked because it was part of the world. There weren't enemies to fight except for a number of Colossi. It was tailored to make you feel alone and on a sad quest. From the instant you kill the first Colossus, you know you're doing something wrong, but you continue on. The game is designed around it, they could have easily populated the game with monsters and NPCs but they didn't.

Zelda doesn't make that distinction. From the trailer they just showed there's enemies but they provide no real excitement. There's no random quests, you just go towards things and spend a long time doing so. Saying "OH THE WORLD IS SO BIG" (which they do about a thousand times in the trailer) means nothing if it's dead. A lot of people prefer Fallout: New Vegas over 3 despite the smaller world because it's dense and filled with content, while 3 had a lot of boring walking and padding.

GTA was an example of an open world game with stuff to do. Stop being a dolt and going "HURR HURR THIS IS ZELDA THERE CAN'T BE CARS!" Of course not, but I want games to be full of content. If the PS3 and Xbox 360 can run a game like GTA V in a large world full of moving people and cars and events, why can't the supposedly much more powerful Wii U make a lush, vibrant world full of events and quests?

 

[aofelix]

gta v looks horrible graphically on ps3/360 imo

 

[Guild McCommunist]

gta v looks horrible graphically on ps3/360 imo

Well compared to the PS4/XB1 versions yeah, but most last gen games look like shit next to their now current gen counterparts.

Someone stated as well that they cell-shaded nature of the game makes it easier graphically since it doesn't need to focus on detail. So this, combined with the "power" of the Wii U, should allow Nintendo to make a large, living, vibrant world for Zelda. But from the looks of it, they aren't.

 

[aofelix]

i think people are underestimating cell shading.

i agree though in that zelda shouldn't be empty SOTC style.. but i really doubt it will be. at the same time, it won't be packed full of shitty meaningless quests either.

i don't know why I'm even talking. i haven't played any wii zelda games, i should really get on them!!

 

[dontay0100]

Wonder if there will be a special edition bundle. Should I wait 'til then or should I get a Wii U right now...?

Depends, do you want just one game or unlimited? lol

 

[Trevor Belmont]

Unlimited games!!

 

[MarioFanatic64]

I'm just going to leave this here:

 

[FAST6191]

I'm just going to leave this here:

Interesting. Assuming it is not a coincidence I wonder that is more someone doing what they know, as in the local area/area they grew up in, or someone doing what they know, as in game they played once or twice.

 

[Bladexdsl]

I'm just going to leave this here:

SNIP

it doesn't even look the same plus the top part isn't even the full map zoomed out.

 

[VinsCool]

Don't care if poeple states this is going to be shit, I want this!

 

[FAST6191]

it doesn't even look the same plus the top part isn't even the full map zoomed out.

I am normally right there laughing at the people that see shit in clouds, though actually most clouds I see do have a fair resemblance to shit... anyway are you really going to argue that key points on both of those are not very similar (look at the blue/water)? Equally what does being zoomed out fully have to do with anything?

 

[Bladexdsl]

look at the blue water? look at the blue water in WW HD

Equally what does being zoomed out fully have to do with anything?

because we haven't seen the full world yet or what it looks like so imposing a zelda 1 map over it is pointless their not the same.

 

[MarioFanatic64]

look at the blue water? look at the blue water in WW HD

because we haven't seen the full world yet or what it looks like so imposing a zelda 1 map over it is pointless their not the same.

So what if the map isn't fully panned out? Did it occur to you that even if it were the same world, which I'm not saying it is and I'm just pointing out the similarites between these two iterations of Hyrule, but if it is the same map don't you think that it would have been expanded? There's some significant similarities to the Zelda 1 map in this portion of the map. I highly doubt that the map in Zelda 1 was the whole Hyrule... it didn't have any features like Hyrule Castle, Lake Hylia or any villages. Plus we don't even know if the map actually does expand past the minimum zoom. That, until proven, is also just speculation.

Your pessimism makes you quick to dismiss things. But if you deny that the placement of those lakes in the map doesn't look similar to the NES map then you're lying to yourself.

 

[Bladexdsl]

there are no similarities your seeing faces in clouds

 

[Nathan Drake]

Shinko @ That.. that PS4 Drake isn't the real Drake what the hell did they do to him?! :-|

He looks younger and more like a son than Drake himself. Agh, some of my hype for Uncharted 4 has died. :-/

It isn't so much that he looks younger, but he looks more real. Uncharted 3 Drake, when you really get down to it, still looks like an animated character. The eyes aren't quite right, the textures are a little on the shiny side, the hair is too perfect, and overall, it's not hard to look at Uncharted 3 Drake and think "that is definitely an animated character". With Uncharted 4 Drake, they've simply added realistic slope to the eyes, they've made the hair less pristine and picture perfect, they've changed the skin texture to reflect real skin better, and you can even see the shirt and leather straps are far better textured. All in all, I don't see different characters, but rather realistic versus semi-realistic.

As for your other comment, I also found Uncharted 3 to be lacking. Uncharted 2 had a better story and was definitely a much more fun game. Plus, the djinn were awful supernatural enemies. Horrible. Way too powerful and not at all fun to fight.

On topic for Zelda: I don't get defending an empty open world. You all played Wind Waker, right? That was a perfect example of how a Nintendo open world could turn out in the modern era. You get tons and tons of space with very, very little to do throughout it, just wishing that there weren't bullshit enemies in the otherwise empty water so that you could go make a sandwich or something while you sailed across the map. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game for what it was, but what I enjoyed was being in the dungeons. Exploring the map, making the sea chart, that got boring as all hell after awhile because it just took so long with 95% of side quest related things happening on the islands between the vast stretches of ocean.

If what we get in Zelda Wii U is just that but on land without having to throw bait to fish, I won't be all that impressed. Echoing what others have said, what makes an open world good is when there's things to do. It doesn't even matter if it's little bullshit side quests that ultimately won't matter. If it's fun and something to do, it's worth tossing into the empty stretches of over world. I mean, Epona riding herself seemed neat at first, but thinking about it, what the hell are you actually doing except just waiting for an enemy to appear? Like was mentioned, Nintendo tends to showoff their games these days when they're fairly close to what we can expect from the final product, and what that is currently indicating is that we will be dealing with a vast over world that is vastly boring and vastly inferior to a more compressed world, accurately reflecting all there is to do.

If that isn't what we get, great, but I'm not going to act like Nintendo is perfect. They've messed up with Zelda before, and they certainly can again.

 

[KingVamp]

Despite subjective taste, Nintendo never "mess up" a Zelda. Mess up make it seems like they put out a totally broken game or something. I don't even find that "Nintendo tends to showoff their games these days when they're fairly close to what we can expect" true. They still have a whole year and only shown a piece of the map.

I understand wanting to see more of and things in the world, but the rest seems like unfair criticism.

 

[Wisenheimer]

Well compared to the PS4/XB1 versions yeah, but most last gen games look like shit next to their now current gen counterparts.

Someone stated as well that they cell-shaded nature of the game makes it easier graphically since it doesn't need to focus on detail. So this, combined with the "power" of the Wii U, should allow Nintendo to make a large, living, vibrant world for Zelda. But from the looks of it, they aren't.

Cell shading actually requires a lot more GPU power to render.

A good example is, compare Twilight Princess to The Wind Waker. Twilight Princess had a lot more detailed graphics because it didn't have the high GPU overhead required to cell-shading entire environments.

A lot of people seem to believe that graphics which look cartoony are necessarily less GPU intensive or impressive than so-called "fidelity" graphics.

 

[shinkodachi]

Despite subjective taste, Nintendo never "mess up" a Zelda.

Because Twilight Princess on Wii wasn't horizontally flipped to make a pseudo right-handed Link, Skyward Sword had perfect controls that worked all the time...

A lot of people seem to believe that graphics which look cartoony are necessarily less GPU intensive or impressive than so-called "fidelity" graphics.

I don't get why you're defending cartoonish graphics as somehow being a prime example of the graphical capabilities of a console. Has it occurred to you that photorealistic graphics are not just high quality textures on a 3D object? Going for realism in graphics takes just as much toll on the hardware as cel shading. (You should know it's not pronounced "cell".)

Okami was not downgraded to cel shaded graphics due to hardware limitations, was it?

IGN: When discussing the overall artistic direction of Okami, did the design team sit down and share ideas about how the game should look? And how much did the game's design evolve?

Atsushi Inaba: Originally the Director wanted to create a realistic looking world, but we had to give up on this concept as we were not able to realise the level of detail we wished for given the constraints of the hardware.

EDIT: Oops, I didn't mean to double post. Sorry about that.